Hacker News Reader

Comment by lupire | Hacker News Reader

Metadata is data.

There is no "just" metadata. Metadata is a relative classification of one piece of data compared to another piece of data, not an absolute classification.

View on HN

It's all data, that's true.

But I think the distinction the various three-letter agencies make is between "metadata" and "content" for most data they process. So in terms of a phone call, an actual voice recording would be "content" while when the call was made and between which two numbers would be "metadata".

With "content" + "metadata" they could verify that the target is actually who they think it is, based on voice. With just "metadata", the chances are higher that it might not actually be who they think it is.

One data's metadata is another metadata's data. Know what I mean.

You can think of it that way. But then you must admit that metadata is content also. Of metametadata.

>> Metadata is data. There is no "just" metadata.

That is a cop out. If you listen to a call or read an email, you have context for innocence/guilt and punishment (however extra-judicial that might be.)

If you have "just" metadata, you just know two people spoke. Perhaps to order a pizza. Perhaps to arrange for a babysitter. No one knows. Killing based on that seems insane to me.

In this context it usually means "we have the time, date, sender and recipient of the message but not the message itself".

Metadata is structural data that can only exist because apps require non-content data to function. It has an objective meaning.

Relative classification of data and metadata is a separate category of data.

So? why is that distinction important to you?

I believe because they are saying the distinction ISN'T important. It's just data, used to make a choice.

I think he's saying that people are defending the use of data by calling it something that makes it sound less intrusive

Metadata seems less significant a word and trivializes it a bit IMO.

Data on the other hand is a "serious" word that we can make decisions on.

I think OP is suggesting that “just metadata” is a sensationalist title, because to a lay person it suggests that decisions predicated on metadata are uninformed compared to decisions predicated on “data,” even though this isn’t necessarily true.

If the title were “We kill people based on data,” then the knee jerk response might be “… obviously.”

How about "We kill people based on poor quality, indirect data"?

the way agencies like the CIA use the term metadata, it is very much inferior to full "data". metadata is just the record of the time, date, parties,... of a phone call, without the voice record of the call. the latter would arguably make for a much better source of information (because you'd know what was actually said, could match the voices,...).

Yeah the media was using this to downplay it a few years back. "It's just metadata." they were all parroting in unison. It aggravated me to no end.

Why do people make hot take comments like this?

There's obviously a difference between metadata and other data, that's why we have a word for it.

What are you trying to say exactly?

People who spy on metadata make dishonest claims like "it isn't an invasion of privacy since we are only collecting metadata".

> There's obviously a difference between metadata and other data,

No. Your metadata is my data; that's the point. "Meta" is an additional contextual characteristic of some (I'd say most) data.

This. Metadata for the intelligence commmunity is a double-edged sword: is it something less, meaning it’s OK to mass collect? Or is it more, meaning it’s enough to justify a killing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com